Tweet
Hello and thank you in advance for reading and considering the below.
I am going through a redundancy process at work but suspect that the process being used is not fair and would appreciate some thoughts on my reasoning and what potential options I may have.
I work for a US based organisation, and am a manager of a small team of 5 individuals in the UK. There is an identical team to mine in the US and a smaller equivalent team in Asia. Between the 3 regions we all perform the same function and share the same workload, so I and my team have responsibility for some US customers for example.
Last week I got a call one evening from my boss in the US advising he will be leaving the firm with immediate effect. He did not offer any more explanation and I did not question it.
2 Days later, I was called into a meeting with my (ex-)Bosses' Boss and HR to be advised that the company was making some redundancies. The reason given that was that the 'Company is proposing to reduce costs to combat financial challenges the company is facing at a global level. These financial constraints require implementing reorganisation measures to protect the groups financial health.'
Profitability last year was poor, so I believe there is truth in the statement that the company is genuinely looking to reduce operating costs.
I was advised that my role may be at risk and that a further individual consultation meeting would be scheduled next week.
2 Of my 5 immediate direct reports also received the same letter and discussion with HR.
The next day, I was advised that one of the team members of the equivalent team in the US had been made redundant and (as per the process in the US) had left with immediate effect. In total, I believe around 10 individuals globally have been or are going through this process.
Although I have not had my initial consultation meeting yet, I have my suspicions about the way the process is being run and how the selection pool was produced.
As a Manager, I was not given any prior notice that 2 of my direct reports would be at risk. I was not asked for my opinion on their performance for the work they were performing vs. the rest of the team.
With hindsight, I should have seen something coming as; as part of the end of year review process (2023) - the 2 individuals in question were downgraded from the performance rating I had provided (of Meets Expectations) to 'Needs Development'. At the time I questioned my manager as to why this was, but was merely told 'it sucks' and that they had to meet a bell-curve across the organisation of performance ratings.
One of the individuals in my team who is impacted by this approached me towards the end of last year (as he is approaching retirement) to find out if voluntary redundancy would be possible. He spoke to both me and my boss about this. At the time I followed up with HR who was told this was not something being offered.
As my manager left before my own end-of-year review was conducted, I do not know what my own personal end-of-year rating was, although previously I had always been in good standing and had not received any indication during our weekly 1:1 meetings that there was any concern with my performance.
The remaining 3 members of my team have not been contacted regarding redundancies and to the best of my knowledge their jobs will remain unchanged. I know another that at least one of those would also be interested in voluntary redundancy (if the package was attractive) - but they have not been approached.
With both myself and my manager being removed or replaced there is clearly a necessary reorganisation needed - at the very least, my own direct staff will potentially need a new line manager.
As I am continuing to work at this time, I have been contacted by a new individual within the firm advising that he will be taking over responsibility for our department. It's not clear whether this is permanent or temporary. There has been no announcement about the new structure or what it will look like.
In a fair redundancy process, I would expect to be able to apply for some of the new roles being created during the restructure - or is that wrong? It appears as though new people are being appointed internally without those jobs being advertised at all.
Obviously I have not been to the first consultation meeting yet so I may be pleasantly surprised but I am wondering whether I should contact HR in advance of that meeting to proactively advise that I would like the opportunity to apply for any new jobs being created as part of the re-org or if I should wait to have that conversation directly during the meeting so as to not give them a chance to prepare in advance for my request?
I am proposing to ask during the consultation meeting who was in my pool and why I was specifically selected from that pool. Is that reasonable? My prediction is that (like my team members) they may say my performance has been poor. If they go down that route, do they have to evidence why that is? (I have met all of my own individual performance goals).
Based on feedback from others who have been through the process previously, I am expecting to be offered 1 months notice period (as per my employment contract) and statutory redundancy rather than a 'settlement package'. Given the relatively low value of this overall, it seems as though paid-legal-advice is likely to cost more than the amount I would expect to receive, so am I best to just roll-over and accept the inevitable?
I am going through a redundancy process at work but suspect that the process being used is not fair and would appreciate some thoughts on my reasoning and what potential options I may have.
I work for a US based organisation, and am a manager of a small team of 5 individuals in the UK. There is an identical team to mine in the US and a smaller equivalent team in Asia. Between the 3 regions we all perform the same function and share the same workload, so I and my team have responsibility for some US customers for example.
Last week I got a call one evening from my boss in the US advising he will be leaving the firm with immediate effect. He did not offer any more explanation and I did not question it.
2 Days later, I was called into a meeting with my (ex-)Bosses' Boss and HR to be advised that the company was making some redundancies. The reason given that was that the 'Company is proposing to reduce costs to combat financial challenges the company is facing at a global level. These financial constraints require implementing reorganisation measures to protect the groups financial health.'
Profitability last year was poor, so I believe there is truth in the statement that the company is genuinely looking to reduce operating costs.
I was advised that my role may be at risk and that a further individual consultation meeting would be scheduled next week.
2 Of my 5 immediate direct reports also received the same letter and discussion with HR.
The next day, I was advised that one of the team members of the equivalent team in the US had been made redundant and (as per the process in the US) had left with immediate effect. In total, I believe around 10 individuals globally have been or are going through this process.
Although I have not had my initial consultation meeting yet, I have my suspicions about the way the process is being run and how the selection pool was produced.
As a Manager, I was not given any prior notice that 2 of my direct reports would be at risk. I was not asked for my opinion on their performance for the work they were performing vs. the rest of the team.
With hindsight, I should have seen something coming as; as part of the end of year review process (2023) - the 2 individuals in question were downgraded from the performance rating I had provided (of Meets Expectations) to 'Needs Development'. At the time I questioned my manager as to why this was, but was merely told 'it sucks' and that they had to meet a bell-curve across the organisation of performance ratings.
One of the individuals in my team who is impacted by this approached me towards the end of last year (as he is approaching retirement) to find out if voluntary redundancy would be possible. He spoke to both me and my boss about this. At the time I followed up with HR who was told this was not something being offered.
As my manager left before my own end-of-year review was conducted, I do not know what my own personal end-of-year rating was, although previously I had always been in good standing and had not received any indication during our weekly 1:1 meetings that there was any concern with my performance.
The remaining 3 members of my team have not been contacted regarding redundancies and to the best of my knowledge their jobs will remain unchanged. I know another that at least one of those would also be interested in voluntary redundancy (if the package was attractive) - but they have not been approached.
With both myself and my manager being removed or replaced there is clearly a necessary reorganisation needed - at the very least, my own direct staff will potentially need a new line manager.
As I am continuing to work at this time, I have been contacted by a new individual within the firm advising that he will be taking over responsibility for our department. It's not clear whether this is permanent or temporary. There has been no announcement about the new structure or what it will look like.
In a fair redundancy process, I would expect to be able to apply for some of the new roles being created during the restructure - or is that wrong? It appears as though new people are being appointed internally without those jobs being advertised at all.
Obviously I have not been to the first consultation meeting yet so I may be pleasantly surprised but I am wondering whether I should contact HR in advance of that meeting to proactively advise that I would like the opportunity to apply for any new jobs being created as part of the re-org or if I should wait to have that conversation directly during the meeting so as to not give them a chance to prepare in advance for my request?
I am proposing to ask during the consultation meeting who was in my pool and why I was specifically selected from that pool. Is that reasonable? My prediction is that (like my team members) they may say my performance has been poor. If they go down that route, do they have to evidence why that is? (I have met all of my own individual performance goals).
Based on feedback from others who have been through the process previously, I am expecting to be offered 1 months notice period (as per my employment contract) and statutory redundancy rather than a 'settlement package'. Given the relatively low value of this overall, it seems as though paid-legal-advice is likely to cost more than the amount I would expect to receive, so am I best to just roll-over and accept the inevitable?
Comment